Is "Inception" as good as "2001: A Space Odyssey"?

  • 57 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by Farty_Fartsalot (84 posts) -

Thoughts?

#2 Posted by sammyjenkis898 (28307 posts) -

No.

#3 Posted by dave123321 (34371 posts) -

No

#5 Posted by MrGeezer (57094 posts) -

Hell no.

#6 Posted by Blueresident87 (5340 posts) -

No. No. No. No. No.

No.

No.

#7 Posted by Aljosa23 (25982 posts) -

LOL

No

#8 Posted by SolidSnake35 (58230 posts) -

Neither make much sense.

#9 Posted by SaintLeonidas (26733 posts) -

Uh...no, I don't think so. Plus, I have no idea why anyone would compare the two.

#10 Posted by DrKillByDeath84 (355 posts) -

No

#11 Posted by JohnF111 (14122 posts) -

I liked Inception more.

#12 Posted by Behardy24 (5324 posts) -

Never watched 2001 Space Odyssey as I can never find it on DVD, but I heard it is great.

I plan to re-watch Inception soon, as I just recently bought it.

#13 Posted by lightleggy (16087 posts) -

Its way better. 2001 is a bad movie by today standards, as in, really bad. it didn't aged well. Simply a movie loved because of it's cult status, but the movie itself isnt that good.

#14 Posted by comp_atkins (32031 posts) -

the shit i took last night was as good as 2001..

#15 Edited by SaintLeonidas (26733 posts) -

@lightleggy said:

Its way better. 2001 is a bad movie by today standards, as in, really bad. it didn't aged well. Simply a movie loved because of it's cult status, but the movie itself isnt that good.

#16 Posted by Master_Live (15832 posts) -

I like both very much.

#17 Edited by JohnF111 (14122 posts) -

@SaintLeonidas said:

Uh...no, I don't think so. Plus, I have no idea why anyone would compare the two.

I think it's the open ending where the viewer decides the rest, I don't watch movies to think, I like movies where the opposite is true, show me what I want to see and be done with it in a nice big fiery closed ending.

#18 Posted by dave123321 (34371 posts) -

Oh yeah light leggy doesn't think people can genuinely love what he hates

#19 Posted by ShadowsDemon (9481 posts) -

I like it better. Much, much better.

Me and my friends have this debate about 2001 all the time. It's a fantastic film. I realise that. But I don't like it, and I don't feel adequately equipped to give a substantial review on it.

Saying that, I do think Inception is inherently superior. :P

#20 Posted by JangoWuzHere (17466 posts) -

2001 is boring

#21 Posted by lightleggy (16087 posts) -

@dave123321 said:

Oh yeah light leggy doesn't think people can genuinely love what he hates

yup. I'm sorry but 60's acting isn't anything compared to today's actings. I cant take any old movie seriously because of that.

#22 Edited by darkmark91 (2914 posts) -

2001 was so bad on so many levels, I can not understand how so many people enjoyed it....

#23 Posted by thelordofpies (769 posts) -

two different type's of show's only thing in common is the mind fuck.

#24 Posted by dave123321 (34371 posts) -

@lightleggy: the issue isn't your personal feelings on things but not accepting that others can feel quite differently about things.

#25 Posted by xdude85 (4589 posts) -

Inception is a bland, overrated piece of trash.

#26 Edited by Aljosa23 (25982 posts) -

@dave123321 said:

@lightleggy: the issue isn't your personal feelings on things but not accepting that others can feel quite differently about things.

It's normal that a 14 year old thinks that way. Leave him be with his awfulness

#27 Posted by speedfreak48t5p (9520 posts) -

yes.

#28 Edited by dave123321 (34371 posts) -

@Aljosa23: i hope he grows out of it.

Unrelated but I wonder when we can expect an inherent vice trailer

#29 Posted by Brutal_Elitegs (16304 posts) -

2001 is a masterpiece that will be remain contemporary forever because of its themes and Kubrick's masterful direction. Inception is a fun flick.

#30 Edited by lightleggy (16087 posts) -

@dave123321 said:

@lightleggy: the issue isn't your personal feelings on things but not accepting that others can feel quite differently about things.

Empathy isn't my strong suit. And that helps me see beyond some things. Most people only like things because others do. It's simply cult following at its work. Deny it but it's the truth.

I'm 20 btw.

#31 Posted by Aljosa23 (25982 posts) -

@Brutal_Elitegs said:

2001 is a masterpiece that will be remain contemporary forever because of its themes and Kubrick's masterful direction. Inception is a fun flick.

Ready for tomorrow?

#32 Edited by Brutal_Elitegs (16304 posts) -

@Aljosa23 said:

Ready for tomorrow?

http://i.minus.com/iQlx329NKQHBT.gif

#33 Posted by Aljosa23 (25982 posts) -

@lightleggy: lol

You are the living ebodiment of this comic.

#34 Posted by dave123321 (34371 posts) -

@lightleggy: hopefully empathy comes to you as you go through your twenties

#35 Posted by Aljosa23 (25982 posts) -

@Brutal_Elitegs said:

@Aljosa23 said:

Ready for tomorrow?

Should be fun. Might bet on Swansea to beat you guys. So many injuries already.

Chelsea already won the league anyway.

#36 Posted by dave123321 (34371 posts) -

What happens tomorrow

#37 Posted by Aljosa23 (25982 posts) -

@dave123321 said:

What happens tomorrow

EPL season starting

#38 Posted by lightleggy (16087 posts) -

@Aljosa23 said:

@lightleggy: lol

You are the living ebodiment of this comic.

No not really, I actually consider myself pretty average. I know everyone has complex thoughts and such. In fact I really hate it when someone tries to claim that he is a special snowflake who is above everyone.

@dave123321 said:

@lightleggy: hopefully empathy comes to you as you go through your twenties

Unlikely. It's not that I don't have empathy, its basic. I'm not some cold blooded psychopath. But I do have Asperger so, yes, relating to other people is a burden most of the time.

#39 Posted by dave123321 (34371 posts) -

Oh, okay. Sorry for any misunderstandings on my part

#40 Posted by LZ71 (10334 posts) -

@sammyjenkis898 said:

No.

@dave123321 said:

No

@MrGeezer said:

Hell no.

Well, that pretty much covers it.

#41 Posted by ShadowsDemon (9481 posts) -

@LZ71: *Raises hand* Yes?

#42 Posted by MrGeezer (57094 posts) -

Wait...are we even allowed to discuss this? Because the last art thread that got made here got locked right out of the blue for absolutely no conceivable reason.

#43 Posted by MFPunch (24 posts) -

They are far to different to compare in any meaningful way.

#44 Edited by MrGeezer (57094 posts) -

@lightleggy said:

Its way better. 2001 is a bad movie by today standards, as in, really bad. it didn't aged well. Simply a movie loved because of it's cult status, but the movie itself isnt that good.

Anyway, why is 2001 a bad movie by today's standards? Why isn't it a good movie? Would you please care to tell me what's wrong with it and why it's bad?

That was my "being fair to other opinions and opening my mind to other viewpoints" part of the post. Here's my "you can eat a **** part of my post." It's only loved because of its cult status? Really? That's a really fucking stupid thing to say. For starters, there are any number of reasons why a movie might be loved. To boill a movie down to a single reason why everyone loves it is just flat out stupid because that's assuming that all PEOPLE are the same. Which you obviously know to not be true, since we can't all agree on whether a movie even is good or bad. If we can't agree on even that, then how the flying fuck can you pretend to narrow down a single solitary reason WHY its fans think it's good?

And secondly, having a cult status CAN'T be a reason why everyone likes it, seeing as how it wouldn't even get a cult status until AFTER it was already liked. A movie can't just up and become a cult classic BEFORE anyone likes it. Its cult status comes AFTER people like it, which means that it's 100% moronic to claim that people only like it because of its cult status.

#45 Posted by lightleggy (16087 posts) -

@dave123321 said:

Oh, okay. Sorry for any misunderstandings on my part

No worries.

@MrGeezer said:

@lightleggy said:

Its way better. 2001 is a bad movie by today standards, as in, really bad. it didn't aged well. Simply a movie loved because of it's cult status, but the movie itself isnt that good.

Anyway, why is 2001 a bad movie by today's standards? Why isn't it a good movie? Would you please care to tell me what's wrong with it and why it's bad?

That was my "being fair to other opinions and opening my mind to other viewpoints" part of the post. Here's my "you can eat a **** part of my post." It's only loved because of its cult status? Really? That's a really fucking stupid thing to say. For starters, there are any number of reasons why a movie might be loved. To boill a movie down to a single reason why everyone loves it is just flat out stupid because that's assuming that all PEOPLE are the same. Which you obviously know to not be true, since we can't all agree on whether a movie even is good or bad. If we can't agree on even that, then how the flying fuck can you pretend to narrow down a single solitary reason WHY its fans think it's good?

And secondly, having a cult status CAN'T be a reason why everyone likes it, seeing as how it wouldn't even get a cult status until AFTER it was already liked. A movie can't just up and become a cult classic BEFORE anyone likes it. Its cult status comes AFTER people like it, which means that it's 100% moronic to claim that people only like it because of its cult status.

Because the quality of acting is pretty low. Most actors from the 60s came from theater, where exaggerating emotions is seen as a good trait. This however doesn't translates properly to movies because movies are supposed to inmerse you in their world. Unlike theater in which the 4th wall is constantly broken by the way actors play their parts.

Writing is also pretty average.

As for the other thing: 2001 was actually hated upon release. Nearly no one liked the film, critics bashed it horribly, and unlike other good films from that time which were bashed for being "too violent", like a fistfull of dollars, the movie was simply bashed because people honestly didn't liked it.

Then some years later, people trying to look "hip" and "cool" would just use the movie and claim it was some sort of hidden gem in cinema which wasn't appreciated because the movie was 3deep5me. So that began the cult status, and a lot of people seeking social acceptance, would go along and repeat over and over how amazing the movie was (and I bet most of them hadn't even watched the movie or even understood it).

You don't even need to be good to have a cult status. Pretty sure movies like the room are considered cult and at the same time some of the worst movies ever made. Same goes for things like death race (the old movie) which was never that good and it still has a cult following.

#46 Edited by commander (8630 posts) -

@Farty_Fartsalot said:

Thoughts?

inception is the worst movie by dicraprio, i know imdb says otherwise and the shawnshank redemption is one of the best movies ever made

but the score on inception is something i will never understand

A space odyssey is one of the best sci fi flicks ever

#47 Posted by uninspiredcup (12847 posts) -

I don't like most of Christopher Nolans movies.

Space Odyssey is kind of Batman Returns in which it's all over the place and a mess but presentation wise stunning to the point that I don't give a shit.

#48 Edited by Aljosa23 (25982 posts) -

@lightleggy said:

@dave123321 said:

Oh, okay. Sorry for any misunderstandings on my part

No worries.

@MrGeezer said:

@lightleggy said:

Its way better. 2001 is a bad movie by today standards, as in, really bad. it didn't aged well. Simply a movie loved because of it's cult status, but the movie itself isnt that good.

Anyway, why is 2001 a bad movie by today's standards? Why isn't it a good movie? Would you please care to tell me what's wrong with it and why it's bad?

That was my "being fair to other opinions and opening my mind to other viewpoints" part of the post. Here's my "you can eat a **** part of my post." It's only loved because of its cult status? Really? That's a really fucking stupid thing to say. For starters, there are any number of reasons why a movie might be loved. To boill a movie down to a single reason why everyone loves it is just flat out stupid because that's assuming that all PEOPLE are the same. Which you obviously know to not be true, since we can't all agree on whether a movie even is good or bad. If we can't agree on even that, then how the flying fuck can you pretend to narrow down a single solitary reason WHY its fans think it's good?

And secondly, having a cult status CAN'T be a reason why everyone likes it, seeing as how it wouldn't even get a cult status until AFTER it was already liked. A movie can't just up and become a cult classic BEFORE anyone likes it. Its cult status comes AFTER people like it, which means that it's 100% moronic to claim that people only like it because of its cult status.

Because the quality of acting is pretty low. Most actors from the 60s came from theater, where exaggerating emotions is seen as a good trait. This however doesn't translates properly to movies because movies are supposed to inmerse you in their world. Unlike theater in which the 4th wall is constantly broken by the way actors play their parts.

Writing is also pretty average.

As for the other thing: 2001 was actually hated upon release. Nearly no one liked the film, critics bashed it horribly, and unlike other good films from that time which were bashed for being "too violent", like a fistfull of dollars, the movie was simply bashed because people honestly didn't liked it.

Then some years later, people trying to look "hip" and "cool" would just use the movie and claim it was some sort of hidden gem in cinema which wasn't appreciated because the movie was 3deep5me. So that began the cult status, and a lot of people seeking social acceptance, would go along and repeat over and over how amazing the movie was (and I bet most of them hadn't even watched the movie or even understood it).

You don't even need to be good to have a cult status. Pretty sure movies like the room are considered cult and at the same time some of the worst movies ever made. Same goes for things like death race (the old movie) which was never that good and it still has a cult following.

The acting in 2001 is absolutely fine and completely adequate for the film. The film doesn't even have that many speaking roles or roles that required nuanced acting so that criticism is weird. If you want to troll the film the least you could have done is talk about the pacing (which I think is fine but others don't). The writing is also fine and it's not a film that lives or dies based off its screenplay so that's another bizarre criticism. Heck, look at a character like HAL, one of the most influential and parodied sci-fi characters of all-time, would not have been as memorable had the writing and voice acting of the character not been up to par. I was plenty immersed into 2001 because of the incredible cinematography, music, and special effects of it, as were other people.

That's some neat historical revisionism you got there. 2001 was deeply polarizing with some people loving it and others not, just like other classic sci-fi films such as Blade Runner and The Thing. The reason 2001 rose to prominence is because it was the first real esoteric science fiction film released in the New Hollywood period, an era where films were trying to strive for realism, which is hard to do when it comes to science fiction. Also, it's special effects were years ahead of anything released at the time. Then the generation that were inspired by that film started making movies (Spielberg, Lucas, Ridley Scott, etc.) and created films that were thematically similar to 2001 so other people were intrigued by 2001 and went to see it. It's not uncommon for art to be re-examined years down the line if it was not appreciated when it first released.

Your personal opinion of 2001 is perfectly fine (though I completely disagree with it) but your opinions of other people towards it is useless and very reductionist. There is no need to project such harmful opinions on to others because it makes you look like a massive prick. I hope you never step foot in any sort of art criticism class and spout silly generalizations like that or you'll get laughed at. If your bit about wanting social acceptance were true then how does that explain people who dislike stuff just because it's popular? I can make the argument that you're disliking this film just to be "cool", but I won't, because that's retarded and adds nothing meaningful to the discussion just like claiming everyone who likes 2001 is part of some hivemind programmed to like 2001.

#49 Posted by one_plum (6364 posts) -

"2001" vs Citizen Kane would be a more interesting comparison if we're basing on acclaim. I haven't seen either movie, but I went to the video store today and wanted to choose between these two movies. I ended up picking 2001.

#50 Posted by toast_burner (22625 posts) -

@lightleggy said:

@dave123321 said:

Oh, okay. Sorry for any misunderstandings on my part

No worries.

@MrGeezer said:

@lightleggy said:

Its way better. 2001 is a bad movie by today standards, as in, really bad. it didn't aged well. Simply a movie loved because of it's cult status, but the movie itself isnt that good.

Anyway, why is 2001 a bad movie by today's standards? Why isn't it a good movie? Would you please care to tell me what's wrong with it and why it's bad?

That was my "being fair to other opinions and opening my mind to other viewpoints" part of the post. Here's my "you can eat a **** part of my post." It's only loved because of its cult status? Really? That's a really fucking stupid thing to say. For starters, there are any number of reasons why a movie might be loved. To boill a movie down to a single reason why everyone loves it is just flat out stupid because that's assuming that all PEOPLE are the same. Which you obviously know to not be true, since we can't all agree on whether a movie even is good or bad. If we can't agree on even that, then how the flying fuck can you pretend to narrow down a single solitary reason WHY its fans think it's good?

And secondly, having a cult status CAN'T be a reason why everyone likes it, seeing as how it wouldn't even get a cult status until AFTER it was already liked. A movie can't just up and become a cult classic BEFORE anyone likes it. Its cult status comes AFTER people like it, which means that it's 100% moronic to claim that people only like it because of its cult status.

Because the quality of acting is pretty low. Most actors from the 60s came from theater, where exaggerating emotions is seen as a good trait. This however doesn't translates properly to movies because movies are supposed to inmerse you in their world. Unlike theater in which the 4th wall is constantly broken by the way actors play their parts.

Writing is also pretty average.

As for the other thing: 2001 was actually hated upon release. Nearly no one liked the film, critics bashed it horribly, and unlike other good films from that time which were bashed for being "too violent", like a fistfull of dollars, the movie was simply bashed because people honestly didn't liked it.

Then some years later, people trying to look "hip" and "cool" would just use the movie and claim it was some sort of hidden gem in cinema which wasn't appreciated because the movie was 3deep5me. So that began the cult status, and a lot of people seeking social acceptance, would go along and repeat over and over how amazing the movie was (and I bet most of them hadn't even watched the movie or even understood it).

You don't even need to be good to have a cult status. Pretty sure movies like the room are considered cult and at the same time some of the worst movies ever made. Same goes for things like death race (the old movie) which was never that good and it still has a cult following.

So have you even watched the film or do you just assume it's bad because it's old?